MC in basic (was: Re: A roadmap for 3.9)
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Mon Dec 13 08:34:33 UTC 2004
Tim wrote:
>> b) I don't like the idea of MC in the base image.
> What's your reasoning here? Do you not like MC, or is it too much code
> to add, or do you have hopes for a different system to be emplaced
> or.... ?
The mere fact of dumping all of the stuff into "basic" is what I don't like.
It has nothing to with MC - just that we're going back right to where we
started. Let's see:
Version # of classes # of methods
3.5 1811 41444
3.6-basic 1338 33303
3.7-basic 1544 35548
3.8-basic 1652 37703
3.9-basic 1700 38861
Raise your hands if you see a pattern. If we add Monticello we get:
3.9-basic+MC 1825 40434
Finally we're on par with 3.5 again - which coincidentally was the version
of Squeak where people complained bitterly about all the excess baggage that
SqC had put into Squeak. So then we put VMMaker, Games, Celeste, Balloon3D,
Wonderland, Scamper into packages. Only to replace them with m17n,
SqueakMap, SUnit, Tests, (and soon) Monticello in basic.
In short, we really need to do something to make a "basic" image which
actually deserves the name - if only to keep ourselves honest with respect
to the modularity issues we have anyway. This is what I consider a "grave
mistake" (actually "fallacy" is the right term to use) - the idea that you
can dump all this stuff into the image and that adding "just a little more"
code will make the problem go away.
[And yes, I do owe Goran an apology here - from the evolutionary point he
was exactly right with his insistance not to put anything in basic that
could be avoided]
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|